Call the fire department when if your house is on fire? Or your cat stuck in a lil’ tree?

Check out books from a public library?

Get your license renewed at the DMV?

Basked in the glory of clean floors and empty trashcans at the statehouse?

Used a Pell Grant to help pay for your degree at Fiscal Idiot State?

Watch the busted water main in front of your house get fixed?

Frolick in your favorite city park?

Do you, or will you, get a social security check in the mail?

Benefit from one of hundreds of other city, state, and federal services?

Yeah.

Thought so.

So next time you whine about losing all your hard earned money to those pork-barrel feds, remember that it’s not actually your money. It’s money you owe. You are paying for a variety of services you use everyday and for some reason feel entitled to have without supporting them monetarily so that they can function. I’m not naive enough to suggest that you benefit from every federally or state funded program — you don’t. But for every program out there that you either don’t believe in or don’t make use of, there’s another person out there who makes no use of a program that serves you. It’s called being a citizen. It’s called contributing a the greater good — a greater good that serves you every day in one way or another.

What really amuses me is that it’s the same people who decry taxes to pay for every day services that call programs like health care and welfare entitlement programs. Meanwhile, they don’t want to pay to support the services they use every day. Now that’s entitlement.

Wowza! It’s been a while since my last post. I guess it’s because I’ve been frolicking on tropical islands. Sorry kids.

But here’s another Dear God it’s what Rachel Thinks!!!

I’ve been thinking about the idea of introducing the concept of homosexuality to kids, especially very young kids. Many argue that they are not ready to hear about homosexuality.

But there’s an important distinction that needs to be made, and that is between introducing the idea of homosexuality, and the idea of homosexual sex

The reality is that kids learn about about heterosexuality from day one. Mom and Dad. Adam and Sarah next door. They learn about the concept of men and women being partners, and they do so, until probably age 6 or so, without learning about heterosexual sex. So when they do learn about sex, it comes with a background of a lifetime of seeing societally-sanctioned relationships. The sex is coupled with the partnership.

Then kids learn about homosexuality. But what’s the first thing they learn? They don’t learn that Adam and Rob are partners, they learn that Adam and Rob as people who have sex. Think back to the first time you heard about homosexuality. Was it about a 20 year relationship, or was it about fucking?

Homosexuals are introduced to children not as people who are partners, but as people who have sex with each other. When it’s only about sex, and not about partnership and love, it can be contorted to be a sin, immoral, depraved, and wrong with much greater ease. After all, the bible only condemns homosexual sex (or it is argued that it does), not going out for coffee with some hot girl you like. And the concept is also contrary to what kids have grown up learning. New things are scary.

Now what if we did this.

What if instead of showing our kids how men and women can be partners, and later reveal that they have sex, we show them that men and women can be partners, men and men can be partners, and women and women can be partners, and later, when kids are ready to learn about any kind of sex, we reveal it across the board.

That way, when people first get their impressions of homosexuality, it’s not of some depraved sex act. It’s of a healthy partnership, just like the one they learned about seeing Mom and Dad. Then when sex gets introduced, homosexuals will perhaps not be seen solely as sexually deviants, but as just normal people, who, well, happen to have sex.

September 27, 2009

Personally, I don’t understand why anyone would want to be in the army. Yes! I get to increase my chance of death! No…not really working for me. But for those who want to fight for their country, lose their big toe for their country, and get shiny stars for their country, I must say I respect your conviction and present the following “Oh God it’s what Rachel Thinks.”

The following article was posted on the Concerned Women for America’s Website, one of the largest and most prominent “pro family pro Christian” groups frolicking with Christ and his rainbows and ponies today. I would of course prefer to call them Christian Workers Forcing Acculturation, but it just doesn’t make for a very strong argument. Oh, what the hey.

This article is interesting. It is interesting because I actually agree with the main point on which it is predicated. I of course vehemently disagree with the extrapolations and conclusions that are made in response to this predicate. But it’s interesting to note that, well, they have a point.

And their point is this: military service is not a right. And, in my mind, they are correct. Military service is a privilege, because it requires a certain set of physical and mental characteristics to be a successful and productive soldier. My narco ass wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near an armored tank mission, because my body does not possess the characteristics to keep my fellow soldiers and myself safe.

But here’s the rub. I have a disability — there’s something wrong. There’s something that concretely and undeniably would jeopardize my performance under fire. This article treats homosexuality in the same way — as a disability. To put it plainly, it is just not.

Homosexuals, bisexuals, and other Queer Identifying persons can possess the same physical and mental capabilities as heterosexuals. How straight do you need to be to pull a trigger? So any argument that they intrinsically cannot do the job is an ignorant misconception.

But more important is the analysis of the impact of homosexuals on the military as a whole; on morale, cohesion, and discipline. Few proponents of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell are on the streets saying gay people aren’t physically up for the job. Their concern lies with the presence of homosexual people disrupting the unit of the military itself.

This article uses four arguments to dispel any opposition towards DADT.

First, it assumes that fewer people would enlist, with no evidence to that matter. It does not mention the skilled homosexual soldiers that would be able to enlist. It also cites a study from 1993 saying that a large percentage of enlisted men and women would not re-enlist with the presence of gays. This study is from 16 years ago. People thought New Kids on the Block were cool 16 years ago. Times have changed.

The article asserts that “[T]his would be tantamount to ordering military women to live in close quarters with men.” It would force persons to accept exposure to other persons who were sexually attracted to them.” This is one of the biggest misconceptions concerning gay people. Not all gay men are attracted to all men. Not all gay women are attracted to all women. And furthermore, even if attracted, they would have to actually be some kind of sexual threat to pose any kind of danger or problem for their fellow soldiers. So in other words, the heart of this issue is the fear that a gay service member may be attracted to a fellow soldier. And that, my friends, is called homophobia. And to deny a right, or privilege, to an individual based on homophobia is called discrimination. Discriminationin this sense is unconstitutional. It denies equal protection under the law.

But then the article makes yet another point that I agree with — civilian life and military life are not the same, and perhaps the military should be given some level of autonomy in deciding the way in which it operates. However, ultimately, the sovereignty of government institutions — organizations, states, even the military — stops when conflicts with the Constitution of the United States. When an argument is predicated on discrimination, it denies an individual their rights. Now I’m not talking about a right to be in the military. As I already mentioned, there is no such inalienable right. I’m talking about their right to be treated like everyone else, because Jefferson said it best: “All Men are Created Equal”